- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Messages
- 8,211
- Reaction score
- 4,179
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
That only works if it's accepted on a societal level. An individual can claim any "right" they want, whether or not they can achieve it often depends on whether or not those around him accept it as well.
If a "right" is nothing more than something you want, then the word really loses all meaning.
A right is not something you want; not once have I said such a thing.
A right is a righteous or moral claim on or to something. Obviously, people can disagree about what's "moral" or "righteous", and that's perfectly reasonable, but unless you are a nihilist or fascist I don't think you'd have much reason to argue against the morality of individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson defines "liberty" quite well:
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
So, Cephus, do you personally agree with his notion of liberty and do you think it is a valid moral basis for our society? If not, you're free to state why.